In a message dated 99-02-23 09:56:34 EST, you write: << Maggie, my problem is not with pomos who do their own thing. It is really with attempts to create a hybrid of Marxism and postmodernism such as Roger Burbach, Stanley Aronowitz, Antonio Callari and Doug Henwood are doing. A Monthly Review from a month or so ago has a sharply critical review of Burbach and Kargalitsky's new book by Chris Rude, a NYC URPE activist and professor. I posted comments to PEN-L by Steve Chodos who is sympathetic to Burbach. (My understanding is that Kargalitsky has subsequently stepped back from many of the more extreme positions of Burbach.) Here is a NACLA article by Burbach that MR also attacked when it first appeared. It is about the most succinct packaging of pomo-Marxism that I've ever seen. >> hi Louis, I am unfamiliar with many of the names you cite, though I have some familiarity with Callari and of course Doug Henwood. I don't think that bringing marxism forward to incorporate different issues such as gender, race and new conceptualizations of class are at all negative, let me rephrase, I think some of this "hybridization" is extremely positive. I have had a few of my students read WALL STREET and push them to look at a variety of left issues, many of which are written by authors with tremendous conflicts. I have downloaded the article you sent, and will read it. However, I do not see why these differences have to come to such extreme blows, the left as fragmented as it is only addresses itself in these battles and loses sight of the main enemy -- the bourgeoisie. It reminds me of what happens from time to time in the phone co. Union members begin attacking each other over arguments only they understand and the company uses the fray to get over big time. I really think that arguments should be that, arguments, not battles. battles should be saved for the real enemy. maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
